The Leveson Report can be read here.
Below is comment on the Leveson Report from The Financial Times, The Guardian, The Daily Mail, News International, The Newspaper Society, PCC, the Society of Editors and The Daily Telegraph.
The Financial Times
Leveson’s lessons for Fleet Street
Lord Justice Leveson’s report into the British press is a damning indictment of the culture and practices of the newspaper industry. Press abuses, he says, have caused real hardship and wreaked havoc with the lives of innocent people.
Newspapers have never shied away from judging others. Fleet Street should have the humility to accept criticism that is justified. There is no merit in the press laying claim to be above the law. Editors and owners must not present themselves as reincarnated trade union barons from the 1970s. It behoves the industry to embrace the report, even if it does not agree with every single recommendation.
The catalogue of abuses laid out in the report confirms that parts of the industry were out of control. There are numerous examples of reckless conduct. The Fourth Estate basked in the privileges of the harlot: power without responsibility. Redressing the balance is primarily a task for the industry rather than the politicians. In this respect, David Cameron’s reaction to the report deserves commendation. He is right to warn of the risks of statutory intervention in newspapers. The government must take care not to suffocate the free press by trying to sanitise it.
The first task must be to fix the industry’s broken system of regulation, which contributed to the excesses documented by Lord Justice Leveson. The Press Complaints Commission has palpably failed to protect the public. While it was never created to tackle criminal behaviour, the PCC suffered from being dominated by industry insiders and serving editors.
The challenge is to come up with a new system that has teeth while trying to avoid opening the door to state interference in the press. Many of Lord Justice Leveson’s ideas in this regard have merit. He has taken some of the ideas proposed by Lord Hunt and Lord Black for a new self-regulatory body. Where he has made changes, he has often strengthened them.
The new body he proposes would have greater powers than the PCC and would enforce a new code of conduct. It would have serious enforcement powers, including the right to levy fines of up to £1m or 1 per cent of turnover. Lord Justice Leveson’s new body would be far more independent than the Black-Hunt model. There would be a majority of independent members. Serving editors would not be eligible for the board.
Any new body must have distance from those it regulates. Newspapers cannot, as the judge notes, mark their own homework. However, it is vital that people with proper experience of journalism are heard, too.
The bigger conundrum is how to ensure that the whole industry signs up to a system that is nominally voluntary. Black-Hunt has proposed a contract in civil law. Lord Justice Leveson wants to go further. His novel idea is to encourage participation through incentives, notably by offering some protection against excessive legal costs in libel actions. This form of arbitration has merit, though it comes at a price. The functions of the new regulator would have to be enshrined in statute, with some entity given the power to oversee the mechanism. In this case, Lord Justice Leveson recommends considering Ofcom, the broadcast regulator, for this role. The sweetener, at least in the judge’s view, would be a recognition in the new law that the government has a duty to promote press freedom.
The Financial Times has reservations about this approach. While there may be merit in a grand bargain that trades the incentives to participate for some measure of statutory underpinning, the idea of handing oversight power to Ofcom is wrong-headed. Ofcom is charged with regulating television broadcasters that have a legal obligation to impartiality. It reports directly to government. This is a step down the road towards state licensing of a press that, of course, has no obligation to provide balance.
This newspaper is also worried about Lord Justice Leveson’s proposals for a “backstop regulator” that would step in if news organisations did not join the new body. This explodes the concept of voluntarism that lies at the centre of his recommendations. It is a press law by the back door and one that pays scant attention to the revolutionary changes in the media landscape. This is increasingly dominated by digital innovators and social media.
The newspaper industry must now respond constructively. It has been given time to develop reforms that are workable and command public trust. Whatever its recent failings, the press remains a cornerstone of our democracy. This should not be forgotten.
(Lionel Barber also gives his views on the report in this video on FT.com.)
The Guardian
Press regulation: Lord Justice Leveson throws the ball back
The prime minister should think carefully before dismissing significant parts of it. The press should treat it with respect – and not a little humility.
Longer than Harry Potter, shorter than Proust, denser than Tolstoy. Brian Leveson's report thumped into the world at just under 2,000 pages and just over a million words. What the Leveson report lacked in literary elegance, it made up for in detail and clarity. It is, it should be said straight away, an immensely seriously argued and comprehensive document. The prime minister, who commissioned it and who has had very little time in which to study it, should think carefully before dismissing significant parts of it. The press should treat it with respect – and not a little humility.
In the past few weeks there have been many column inches devoted to arguing that the press is a noble and independent estate motivated by truth-telling, holding power to account and serving the public interest. Some of that is true. But Leveson paints a very different picture of another reality. He doesn't tar all journalists with the same brush, but nor does he accept that there was one rogue reporter, or even one rogue newspaper group. He describes a widespread indifference to ethical concerns, professional standards, or the effects of intrusion, whether criminal or legal. The cumulative picture – from phone-hacking through to the "industrial" use of private detectives, with no legitimate case by numerous titles – is darker than anyone can have suspected at the start of the inquiry. There will be many in the press who disagree with the judge's conclusions, but no journalist should fool themselves. The fact that the industry is now threatened with statutory controls is no one else's fault.
Leveson is merciless in exposing the feebleness of the Press Complaints Commission, which virtually all journalists once saluted as feared, robust and independent, but which, nearly everyone now agrees, was no such thing. It lacked any meaningful independence, powers or sanctions. It was, bluntly, not a regulator. As Nick Clegg noted in a cool and crisp statement, the voices shouting most loudly about political influence over the press seemed quite unconcerned that three out of the PCC's five chairmen have been Conservative peers. Two of those peers – Lords Hunt and Black – did their best to stitch together a reformed version of the PCC which was a considerable improvement on its predecessor – having teeth, a concern for professional standards, the ability to investigate and the power to levy fines. But in his press statement Lord Justice Leveson said the Hunt-Black proposals "did not come close" to his idea of a truly independent regulator. It was, he said, neither stable nor durable – and he rejected outright the plan to have an industry funding body with the power to pull strings through nominations, appointments and rotations. He was quite right to do so.
Some advance billing suggested that the judge would instead propose a system of statutory regulation little different from that which exists in Zimbabwe or Kazakhstan. In the event, he put forward something he described as independent regulation, organised by the press itself, with a statutory underpinning and verification. It would be voluntary – but participation would be incentivised by the carrot and stick of belonging to an arbitral system that would give significant cost and damages advantages in libel or privacy actions. In order to cement these legal benefits, Leveson advocated some statutory underpinning. He also wanted the media regulator Ofcom to be involved in three possible roles: to certify the new regulator complied with the Leveson criteria; to audit it on an ongoing basis; and as an alternative regulator to any refuseniks who declined to join the system.
There are many good things about Leveson's ideas. The new regulator would be tough, independent and durable. It ought to answer many of the concerns of the victims of intrusions, whose voice should never be forgotten during the coming debate. News papers – which have complained for years about the iniquities and cost of the law – ought to welcome a more flexible, quicker and cheaper alternative. As we have argued consistently, this is a real prize worth having, even if it needs statute to achieve it and to make it stick. The processes of appointment and governance he outlines are fairer, more open and more transparent than the old PCC club. Publishers – including digital players – would have compelling reasons to want to be inside the tent. Anyone outside the tent could be regulated by Ofcom.
But a 2,000-page report is bound to provoke questions. Is Ofcom really the right body to be involved in all, or any, of these roles? Can any system be both voluntary and still have compulsion? While statutory underpinning may be necessary to achieve the carrots and sticks needed to make the system work, there are reasons to be nervous about what's in the proposed statute. First, setting out statutory criteria by which Ofcom or another certifying body would assess the regulator could have unintended consequences. Ofcom's view of what constitutes an appropriate code of standards, for example, might allow for mission creep. The statute would have to stay at a high level and prevent Ofcom taking artistic licence. Second, if Leveson's doomsday scenario comes true and major publishers choose to stay out of any self-regulatory body, he recommends that Ofcom becomes the direct backstop regulator for that publisher. More worrying still, he indicates that this would extend to any organisation of significant size and impact which is in "press-like services". Not only does this lean towards a form of licensing, it will worry large digital providers like Google and Yahoo, not to mention online news providers. Instead of having the carrot to join, they could now be required to.
Clearly, therefore, the drafting of the Leveson statute requires great care, real deliberation and cross-party support to avoid endless amendments and additions that move it from light touch to something more sinister. And cross-party support does not look a rock-solid prospect after today's events. The prime minister has surprised many, especially the victims, with his multi-levelled concerns about statute. It is not clear if this is a position of principle, or to win friends on the Tory benches and in Fleet Street. Clegg has recoiled from this, although he has wisely noted that if Conservative fears relate to the pre-eminence here of their old enemy, Ofcom, Leveson allows for someone other than Ofcom to play the certifying role. Ed Miliband has found himself again in the role of champion of the victims against the vested interests of the press. And without any Leveson criticism of the prime minister over excessive cosiness to News International, Miliband may open up a real dividing line with the Tories on press regulation, an issue he may have otherwise wanted consensus around. The odds are that the prime minister will try to find common ground with his opposite numbers, certainly given the possibility of parliamentary arithmetic being against him. Miliband has taken a principled position, for which most newspapers will attack him, not credit him. Similarly, Nick Clegg has chosen this moment to put his own beliefs ahead of coalition harmony.
Leveson has set a testing challenge for politics, but he has also set a challenge for the press. His report is argued with such detail and formidable force that it will not be enough, in the coming weeks, to erect straw men, or to mount personalised attacks on the perceived enemies of press freedom. Leveson's arguments will not be answered by threats or lobbying. His recommendations require cool analysis and a collective response from an industry which is not used to speaking with a unified voice. While Lords Hunt and Black have done useful work in trying to draw up a reformed version of the discredited PCC, it is not clear that they are now the right people to be trying to build a consensus among a diverse group of editors, publishers and proprietors. Their past efforts confusingly married consultation with lobbying and they badly misjudged what would be acceptable, either to the inquiry or to Westminster. The press urgently needs to find a substantial figure above the immediate fray who can approach Leveson's proposals with something like an objective eye and who can make convincing responses on merit. Nothing else, at this late hour, will command respect from the party leaders, who have embarked on a cross-party endeavour to avoid a damaging clash between politics and press.
Leveson was the seventh occasion in as many decades that an inquiry has been commissioned into the behaviour of the press. It's time to get it right.
The Daily Mail
Cameron leads the fight for liberty
Let the Mail say at once that Lord Justice Leveson, though sometimes let down by sloppy researchers, has approached his impossibly wide brief in a fine spirit of public service. To the best of his abilities, he has tried to be fair and keep his patience, while tackling issues over which passions have inevitably run high.
To his credit, too, he has avowed his belief in the central importance to democracy of a free Press, accepting the former can’t exist without the latter.
Reassuringly, he has stressed newspapers should not be restricted to reporting weighty matters, deemed by the great and good to be ‘in the public interest’. They should also be free to entertain and provoke.
But as he points out, this doesn’t mean there’s no need for reform.
Indeed, this paper has long shared the public’s distaste over the conduct of some sections of the Press — and since the phone-hacking scandal (exposed by a newspaper) we have helped draw up plans for a new and much tougher regulatory body.
True, it is striking that on the two specific charges of malpractice that triggered his inquiry, Sir Brian Leveson brings in verdicts of not guilty.
He finds the Guardian was wrong to assert that a News of the World hacker had deleted messages from Milly Dowler’s voicemail, so raising false hopes that the missing schoolgirl was still alive.
He also concludes the early failure of the police to investigate hacking at the NoW (more than made up for in the scores of arrests since) had nothing to do with a corrupt relationship between the owners and the Met.
Rather, the innocent explanation was that officers were too busy fighting terrorism at the time.
Despite all this, we have the gravest reservations about some of Sir Brian’s recommendations.
Repeatedly, he has said he is not proposing statutory regulation, but merely a body ‘underpinned’ by statute. This is just playing with words.
For the new regulator would depend on recognition from Ofcom, whose chairman is appointed by the Government.
Indeed, Sir Brian seems worryingly unable to grasp that once MPs and the media quango become involved, the freedom of the Press from state control will be fatally compromised for the first time since 1694.
Though he assures us his regulator will be appointed by an independent panel, he doesn’t answer the burning question: who will appoint the panel?
Isn’t there an acute danger that it will end up like so many public bodies, including Ofcom itself — stuffed with Blairites, on massive salaries, with a Left-leaning perception of what constitutes the public interest?
Chillingly, Sir Brian also suggests any publication that refuses to accept the new body’s jurisdiction should be made to pay the full costs of an ensuing civil court action even if it wins the case.
So, for the first time, the principle of punishing the innocent would be enshrined in British law.
Elsewhere in his report, Sir Brian displays an other-worldly naivety that can only undermine public faith in his understanding of the issues at stake.
Isn’t it extraordinary that he gave an entirely clean bill of health to the police and politicians in their dealings with the Press?
As for his suggestion that the police should be banned from talking to journalists off the record, how on Earth does he imagine stories of police corruption or incompetence have ever been brought to light?
He praises the Mail for bringing Stephen Lawrence’s killers to justice. But if it weren’t for confidential briefings by senior officers, the guilty would still be at large.
Most surprising of all, perhaps, is his ignorance of the unregulated internet’s effects on the ability of the Press to compete. Can he really believe, in the age of the smartphone, children could have been protected from seeing pictures of the naked Prince Harry, simply by banning newspapers from publishing them?
Indeed, in his statement yesterday, Sir Brian raised the internet only to dismiss it as unimportant while failing to mention the huge democratic deficit opening up as, one after another, newspapers go to the wall.
Both Ed Miliband and Nick Clegg must see how our democracy is imperilled by the slow death of the commercially viable Press. Yet for grubby political reasons, they have embraced the Leveson report, backed by expenses-fiddling MPs with axes to grind.
Indeed, the way Mr Miliband yesterday put politics before principle was truly depressing.
To his enormous credit, however, David Cameron sees this report for what it is — a mortal threat to the British people’s historic right to know.
If he prevails in protecting that right, with the help of like-minded freedom lovers in the Commons and Lords, he will earn a place of honour in our history.
News International
Statement from Tom Mockridge, Chief Executive Officer, News International
"We are grateful to Lord Justice Leveson for his thorough and comprehensive report, and will be studying its recommendations and comments in detail. As a company we are keen to play our full part, with others in our industry, in creating a new body that commands the confidence of the public. We believe that this can be achieved without statutory regulation – and welcome the Prime Minister’s rejection of that proposal. We accept that a new system should be independent, have a standards code, a means of resolving disputes, the power to demand prominent apologies and the ability to levy heavy fines. We have spent 18 months reflecting upon these issues and are determined to move on as soon as possible with others in our sector to set up a new body that will ensure British journalism is both responsible and robust.”
The Newspaper Society
Adrian Jeakings, president of the Newspaper Society and chief executive of Archant: "The UK’s local media had nothing to do with the phone hacking scandal which prompted the Leveson Inquiry but we have been all too aware that hundreds of responsible regional and local newspapers would inevitably be caught up in any resulting new system of press regulation.
We therefore welcome the Leveson Report’s praise for the important social and democratic role played by the local press, his acknowledgement that the criticisms of the culture, practices and ethics of the press raised in this inquiry were not directed at local newspapers and his recommendation that the regulatory model he proposes should not provide an added burden to our sector.
However, local newspapers have always been vehemently opposed to any form of statutory involvement or underpinning in the regulation of the press, including the oversight by Ofcom proposed in the report. This would impose an unacceptable regulatory burden on the industry, potentially inhibiting freedom of speech and the freedom to publish.
We believe the industry is in a position to establish the sort of tough new system of independent, accountable press regulation with the power to investigate wrongdoing and levy fines, envisaged by the report. All major news publishers – and some internet news providers – have indicated they will join such a system provided there is no statutory backstop. In practice, this independent self-regulatory system would almost certainly be stronger and more effective than any statutory model could ever be and could be put into place very quickly.
Newspapers are ultimately accountable to their readers and must abide by the laws of the land. But, as the Prime Minister has today acknowledged, a free press cannot be free if it is dependent on and accountable to a regulatory body recognized by the state."
Society of Editors
Bob Satchwell, Executive Director of The Society of Editors, has said that the industry will look to incorporate Lord Justice's Leveson's concerns into their plan for a more robust form of self-regulation.
Mr Satchwell responded to criticisms given by Lord Justice Leveson in his report that plans for a beefed-up regulator 'did not even come close' to ensuring independence from the industry and ensuring public confidence in a future regulator.
Speaking to Sky News outside of the Queen Elizabeth II Centre in London, he said: "What Leveson should be saying is that the industry plan, put forward by Lord Hunt and Lord Black, has come up with some proposals that I don’t think have gone far enough. They should now throw it back to the industry to give them a chance to take onboard these criticisms."
Mr Satchwell also pointed towards assurances by Lord Black of Brentwood, Executive Director of the Telegraph Media Group, and Lord Hunt, Chairman of the Press Complaints Commission, that the industry plan would respond 'positively' to Lord Justice Leveson's concerns and was up to the challenge of responding to his recommendations.
Lord Black also raised concerns echoed by the Prime Minister during Prime Minister’s Questions that any move towards statutory underpinning should not be taken lightly.
Speaking after the publication of the report, the Pressbof Chairman said: “Lord Justice Leveson has issued a challenge to the press to establish a new, tough system of regulation. I believe that the plan that the industry has put forward goes a long way to meeting that challenge.
He added: "In those areas where the report expresses concern – such as independence and appointments procedures – we will study his proposals and I believe respond positively. However, there is no need to subject the new regulatory body to the statutory regime of Ofcom in order to achieve this. Any form of statutory press control in a free society is fraught with danger, totally impractical and would take far too long to implement.”
The report, published today at 1.30pm, recommended a strong new independent regulator distanced from industry control and underpinned by statute if necessary.
Mr Satchwell welcomed Lord Justice Leveson’s praise for the valuable work that the press does and recognition that criticism of the culture, practices and ethics of some was levelled at a minority of the industry.
Mr Satchwell reinforced calls by John Whittingdale, Chairman of the Culture, Media and Sport Select Committee, that statutory regulation had the capability to set a dangerous precedent.
He said: "The industry has recognised that something more needed to be done. What there can't be is any form of forced statutory regulation. It would take us back down that slippery slope of 350 years ago to licensing. If you let politicians get too involved this poses a problem. You can't have too much detail in statutory underpinning. This is where the danger lies."
PCC
Lord Hunt responds to the Leveson Report
Sir Brian Leveson is to be congratulated on a massive piece of work. Although I do not agree with all of the conclusions, I must praise him and his dedication and commitment.
We all agree that we must regain the trust and confidence of the British people to make sure that unacceptable, outrageous and illegal behaviour can never be allowed to happen again.
So we now need to find a way forward. I suggest that we all now digest this report and seek our common ground and then unite around it. Above all it is absolutely key that the result is a new regulator with effective sanctions and teeth, and independent from the Industry and from the Government.
I have to say, however, that I am not convinced statutory regulation including supervision of press regulation by Ofcom would have prevented the horrors of the past. What will prevent them happening again is getting the press to sign up to a fresh start and a serious improvement in Governance and culture.
The Daily Telegraph
Let us implement the Leveson Report, without a press law
The newspaper industry must act quickly to set up an independent regulatory body that fulfils the principles put forward by the Leveson Report
We agree with Lord Justice Leveson: a free press is one of the safeguards of our democracy. Where we part company with the learned judge, whose report on the ethics of our industry was published yesterday, is in his belief that either of these two bulwarks of British liberty would be served by a regulatory body for newspapers that is underpinned by legislation.
We do not doubt that he is anxious to avoid state control of the press; and he maintained at his news conference, where he took no questions, that it would be “unfair” to characterise what he was proposing as statutory regulation. But this is either sophistry or naivety on the judge’s part, since he has no idea what a Bill to underpin a new independent regulatory framework would look like when it emerged from Parliament. How would it be drafted? How would the incentives and penalties for publications be framed? Could a definition of the public interest be bolted on? In other words, what is to stop MPs amending it now and in the future so that it no longer resembles the benign legislative vehicle envisaged by the judge?
These crucial points were recognised and understood by David Cameron yesterday in his response to the report. When he set up the inquiry last summer, the Prime Minister said the status quo was no longer an option, so he cannot have been surprised to discover that the judge took him at his word. And Mr Cameron – whose Government was cleared of allegations that it colluded with the Murdoch media empire to fast-track its abortive BSkyB takeover – could have taken the easier route and gone along with the recommendation of statutory intervention. That he chose not to – and has taken a stand on an important matter of principle – is to his great credit. As he told the Commons: “For the first time we would have crossed the Rubicon of writing elements of press regulation into the law of the land. We should be wary of any legislation that has the potential to infringe free speech and a free press… and think very, very carefully before crossing this line.”
Mr Cameron’s difficulty now is that neither his deputy, Nick Clegg – despite describing himself as a liberal – nor Ed Miliband, the Labour leader, shares this view. They want to set out a timetable for the implementation of a new regulatory body for the press that is independent of politicians and the industry but based on statute, a position that has substantial support in Parliament. As cross-party talks began last night to find a way forward, it was ominous to hear Mr Miliband imply that they were not about whether to implement Leveson on an agreed basis, but about how and when to change the law. It will be hard, though it should not be impossible, to reconcile these positions, and it is essential that such discussions are conducted in an open-minded way. The press must also show humility and do everything in its power to enable agreement to be reached.
Lord Justice Leveson’s inquiry was the seventh into the press since the Second World War, and it was certainly the most comprehensive, taking oral and written evidence from more than 600 witnesses. The last – in 1993, carried out by Sir David Calcutt QC – recommended the creation of a statutory tribunal to oversee the press. However, the Major government decided to allow self–regulation to continue under the Press Complaints Commission, with a tougher code of practice.
Lord Justice Leveson said there must not be an eighth inquiry. Effectively, the message from his four-volume report is that the industry has blown its chance to demonstrate that it can police itself; and, after seeing the procession of people before his inquiry whose lives were affected, or in some cases ruined, by intrusive reporting, this view clearly has weight. However, it would be wrong to use bad behaviour by the minority as an excuse to introduce the first press statute since censorship laws were abolished in 1695. Whatever the judge hopes, this would be a slippery slope to state meddling. Again, as Mr Cameron said in Parliament yesterday: “The danger is that this would create a vehicle for politicians, whether today or some time in the future, to impose regulation and obligations on the press, something that Lord Justice Leveson himself wishes to avoid.” The judge’s report also suggested that, as an additional safeguard, legislation could enshrine the independence of the press. But that proves the point: why is it even necessary to contemplate such a protection unless there is a threat to its independence?
The all-party talks offer some breathing space and a chance for clearer thinking. There are many good ideas put forward in the report – for instance, the proposal of cheap, effective arbitration to help victims get swift redress to their complaints – and these should form the basis of the new press regulation.
Lord Justice Leveson states: “By far the best option would be for all publishers to choose to sign up to a satisfactory self-regulatory regime and, in order to persuade them to do so, certain incentives are required.” This is indeed the best option. The industry must act quickly to set up an independent regulatory body that fulfils the principles put forward by Leveson. If it does that, then Mr Cameron, Mr Clegg, Mr Miliband and Parliament should be able to stay on the right side of the Rubicon.
